Courts Apply The Crime-Fraud Exception

Courts Apply the Crime-Fraud Exception Every court recognizes that neither the attorney-client privilege nor the work product doctrine should protect communications that further the client's criminal or fraudulent conduct. Although courts differ on some of the elements of the "crime-fraud" exception, they agree on some basic concepts.

In Everflow Technology Corp. v. Millennium Electronics, Inc., the court pointed to a California evidence rule stripping privilege and work product protection from communications if the moving party establishes "a prima facie case of crime or fraud," and "a reasonable relationship between the crime or fraud and the attorney-client communication." No. C07-05795 HRL, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4810, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2013) (not for citation). The court found that plaintiff had carried this burden. At nearly the same time, the District of Nebraska declined to apply the crime-fraud exception, concluding that plaintiffs "have not offered